Controlled Opposition: The Weaponization of Narratives to Protect Power and Silence Dissent

The concept of controlled opposition is a complex one. On the surface, it would simply be placing someone at the forefront of the effort to stop a communist revolution or other political movements who appear to be in opposition but really serve the interests of those actually in control.

In the book 1984 by George Orwell, the person representing controlled opposition is a character named “Emanuel Goldstein. A character that is seen to be Jewish, against the party and communist system, and the focus of all public hatred.

In some ways, one could easily make the case that for more than eight years now, the Democrats and their overtly supportive media have placed Donald Trump in that role, as well as casting all who follow him as dangerous to the social and political order.

But in the book 1984, Goldstein, and even his secret underground book exposing the true nature of the communist state, was written by a high-ranking party member, O’Brien.

Below is a video from all the way back in 2012, looking at another form of controlled opposition. The careful use of language to mitigate a crime so large there is not even a word for it in the English language:

Let’s begin with the name of the crime as BBC and the state describe it:

“Grooming gangs”.

This might bring to mind numbers of friendly people with hair dryers and bottles of conditioner, chasing down young women to try and make them as pretty as possible. Or possibly a number of people working backstage at a dog show.

What they actually are is very large numbers of Muslim men, overwhelmingly of Pakistani descent, who coerce or kidnap or trick White British girls as young as nine into going with them to be turned into sex slaves. Not prostitutes, because although the men who run these operations charge clients for access to the children, the girls never receive any money. Just violence or social horror, should they escape or tell adults or authorities about what is done to them?

Some have their tongues nailed to a table for telling their parents. Others are told that their parents will be killed if the children inform them. The examples here may all be read in the book Easy Meat, which entirely relies on previously published open-source information.

There is not a single word, or even a neologism, that describes the actual crime, as it is beyond the imagination of decent people. But it will have to suffice for now to call them child sex-slavery gangs. On second thought, one wonders if the Arabic word “harem” might suffice, although that might carry overly romantic imagery. But in historical fact, harems were probably exactly like this. The kidnapping and enslavement of European women for sex slavery.

The Islamic State did exactly this to a large number of Yazidi women just in the past fifteen years. And with perfect Islamic scriptural justification.

Next is more language, which misattributes agency.

The “Asian” (we will come back to that) man who was sentenced was said to be running a “brothel”.

First of all, a brothel is a place in which prostitutes work. Prostitutes are women who earn money selling sexual services, as a rule. This is their choice. Their conscious decision. They are adult women capable of making decisions; hence, they have agency. No matter what your views on prostitution are, women who choose to do this may or may not be committing a crime, depending on the local laws, and may or may not be committing a ‘sin,’ depending on your religious views.

But it is they who are doing it. The responsibility is theirs alone if you believe men and women are equal in agency. In the ability of adult women to choose freely for themselves.

But when girls too young to decide what to do with themselves are persuaded, coerced or threatened into this act, it is not prostitution. The location is not a brothel but a sex-slavery operation. And, as stated above, perhaps a harem.

The concept of agency is central to Western culture and law. The media’s use of this kind of deceptive language is a solid example of controlled opposition by manipulation of language.

Next is how the authorities treated complaints by the children.

Below is an interview with one of the victims of one of the most famous of the child-sex-slave operations by Muslims in the UK. A much shorter version of this interview was included in the film “Killing Europe” by the Danish-American filmmaker Michael Hansen. The following is the full interview with the victim, her mother, and a social worker.

Pay close attention to how the politicians and the police treated the victims in the video below when they attempted to alert authorities, who either already knew about the operation or were actual participants in it.

For the purpose of this article, the most salient aspect is the way the police would stop doing any interviews if the victim mentioned crucial facts.

The operators were all Muslims and primarily Pakistani. This was not allowed to be said. And, if spoken, it was treated as a greater crime than the sexual enslavement itself of British children.

Perhaps most interestingly is the constant use of the adjective “Asian”. When pressed back when these stories were in the news, the explanation was they said “Asian” instead of “Muslim because attributing the crimes to Muslims was racist.

It is stunning that so few, if anyone, with a voice at the time, pointed out that referring to these child sex slavers as “Asian” really is racist and does not address any connecting ideology that might justify the crime. The most populous Muslim country in the world is Indonesia, and Muslims exist in numbers of all races.

Below, a video containing a short conversation between the current PM of the UK, Kier Starmer, and London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, where the Prime Minister explains that after the genocidal attack on Israel by Hamas, the real problem is the racism of Islamophobia:

So once again, legacy media, clearly working closely with Government agents to determine how narratives were to be crafted in order to give the desired response, allowed for this ludicrous misattributing of a critical adjective.

Controlled opposition is a general term to describe a category of tactics meant to disable our responses to attacks on our culture and people in every imaginable way. And the way media, and perhaps especially media that sell themselves as “conservative”, manipulate language to create an effect that guarantees inaction or ineffective action by the public is perhaps the most dangerous kind of controlled opposition, as it has the strongest illusion of informing you about the things a state you do not like is doing to you, without telling you anything that matters.

And when you do actually pierce the illusion, as happened in the English town of Southport last summer when people openly stated that it must be a Muslim and the stabbing of multiple young girls at a Taylor Swift dance party had to have been an act of jihad, the naked and brutal nature of the British state as it actually is, made itself manifest on the streets for all to see.